Brian Rock Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 Good I hate trying to post pics... [ 10-23-2001: Message edited by: Brian Rock ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 Hmmm. can't get the piccie to show. Try looking at this: http://au.photos.yahoo.com/bc/xrayzed/vwp?.dir=/Combat+Mission&.src=ph&.dnm=Sherman+v+StuG.jpg&.view=t&.done=http%3a//au.photos.yahoo.com/bc/xrayzed/lst%3f%26.dir=/Combat%2bMi ssion%26.src=ph%26.view=t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 Now I can't even get the #$%*$ URL text to post properly... Some geek I'm turning out to be... [ 10-23-2001: Message edited by: Brian Rock ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 Bugger. This isn't working... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 tee hee. Its fun watching someone wrestle with UBB code in real time. Sorta like watching CNN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 LOL. Now bugger off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 not until you show me your picture, you silly dingo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted October 23, 2001 Author Share Posted October 23, 2001 Hehehe....I've yet to manage to post an actual image on a forum. I gave up months ago. I did finally learn how to write something in bold font. I hope to be able to italicize in the next few months. So I doubled my samples and increased my accuracy +/- 3%. That will have to do. I guess I would have to do it 1,000 times to really be spot on, eh? I might start going with 400 just to get inside the +/- 5% instead of being just outside. My tests will just take a little longer is all. Think of how many games you would have to play to experience any single matchup 400 times. These tests truly do present new knowledge about CM. Is it useful knowledge? Maybe not, but I enjoy finding out about various armor matchups anyway. Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wreck Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 Lemme try: http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/bf166cfb/bc/Combat+Mission/__hr_Sherman+v+Stu G.jpg?bceaX17ApU8QRQeW <img src=http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/bf166cfb/bc/Combat+Mission/__hr_Sherman+v+StuG.jpg?bceaX17ApU8QRQeW> [ 10-23-2001: Message edited by: Wreck ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Treeburst155: BTS has specifically stated in the past that price is base ONLY on actual combat value. Rarity, etc. is not figured in. Only lethality on the battlefield is considered for unit cost. Rarity will be factored into CMBB IIRC. Treeburst155 out.<hr></blockquote> In applying prices to tanks BTS seems to have placed a lot of weight on a tank's performance against infantry--hence the relatively high cost of Shermans. Why you have to pay a LOT extra for decent ground pressure characteristics and minimal armor improvements, though, is a mystery to me. The Jumbo 76 provides perhaps the most reasonable price-peformance return of all the US tanks, but is such rarity that I feel guilty ordering it in a QB. I once got three randomly assigned in a 2000pt QB and finally knew what POWER was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted October 23, 2001 Author Share Posted October 23, 2001 Hey Tom, I've been trying to send you your files for a tourney game for 36 hours now. Is your email down or is it something on my end? Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted October 23, 2001 Share Posted October 23, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Treeburst155: Hey Tom, I've been trying to send you your files for a tourney game for 36 hours now. Is your email down or is it something on my end? Treeburst155 out.<hr></blockquote> I don't know. My email has been a bit inconsistent, but I have been receiving some files. I will try to link to you via email and we'll see. Sorry to be the cause of trouble. BTW, I like your armor experiments. How about an M10 vs. Panther matchup. Also Sherm 76 vs Panther. Those happen a lot in the real game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted October 23, 2001 Author Share Posted October 23, 2001 OK, M10 vs Panther next, then Sherman 76m W against Panther. Both of these Allied vehicles will not do well. I'll make the Allies veterans and the Panthers regular. The Allies will still take a beating I think. Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted October 24, 2001 Author Share Posted October 24, 2001 TEST EIGHT VETERAN M4A3 76(W) vs REGULAR Panther VG(late) at 304 meters. Tested 400 times!! Sherman survival rate: 97/400 or 24% (including 8 immobilized) Panther survival rate: 255/400 or 64% (including 19 immobilized) Mutual destruction: 12% Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted October 24, 2001 Share Posted October 24, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Treeburst155: TEST EIGHT VETERAN M4A3 76(W) vs REGULAR Panther VG(late) at 304 meters. Tested 400 times!! Sherman survival rate: 97/400 or 24% (including 8 immobilized) Panther survival rate: 255/400 or 64% (including 19 immobilized) Mutual destruction: 12% Treeburst155 out.<hr></blockquote> If anything, the Shermans did better than I thought they would, but that's still a nearly 3/1 survival advantage for the Panthers, which dont' cost vastly more than Veteran Sherman 76s. Treeburst, when you put all of these results together, could you attach cost figures for each of the vehicles and maybe do a ratio of cost vs. survival? That might substantiate (or not) claims that US tanks/TDs are overpriced relative to German tanks/TDs. I know that wasn't part of your original goal, but it would be a useful by-product. We might be told that head to head battles aren't the way to fight with US tanks, but frankly the ability to survive head-to-head battles is one of the chief requirements of a tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted October 29, 2001 Author Share Posted October 29, 2001 I'll list the unit costs from now on. I'm not quite sure I know what you mean by a cost/survival ratio. I could divide the survival percentage (x 100) by the cost. This would mean the higher the quotient the better. Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted October 29, 2001 Share Posted October 29, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Treeburst155: I'll list the unit costs from now on. I'm not quite sure I know what you mean by a cost/survival ratio. I could divide the survival percentage (x 100) by the cost. This would mean the higher the quotient the better. Treeburst155 out.<hr></blockquote> Yeah, that's what I had in mind. If you're still running tests, how about the Jumbo 76 versus Panther and Tiger (all Regular)? The Jumbo 76 might just win against the Panther in a head to head confrontation. Not sure about the Tiger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted October 29, 2001 Author Share Posted October 29, 2001 I will probably always be running tests. It's just a matter of finding the time. I'll do a Jumbo/Panther and Jumbo/Tiger test next. Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted October 29, 2001 Share Posted October 29, 2001 Jumbo will cream Tiger. While Panther has the edge over Jumbo. I'd say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted October 30, 2001 Author Share Posted October 30, 2001 TEST NINE Regular Jumbo 76 (two tungsten) vs Regular Panther VG(late) at 310 meters. Tested 400 times. Panther cost: 199 Jumbo cost: 202 Jumbo survival rate: 41% Panther survival rate: 51% Mutual destruction: 8% Note: There were five instances where both tanks survived the minute with working guns. These were counted as survivors for both sides. This situation occurred 1.25% of the time so I consider it interesting, but insignificant. Survival/Cost ratio for Panther: .256 Survival/Cost ratio for Jumbo: .203 (Higher is better) Even the mighty Jumbo has problems with the Panther(late) at common CMBO ranges. _________________________________________________ I've come to the conclusion that tests should be done at several different ranges for all matchups. I've already found that results can change dramatically with the Jackson/Panther matchup by changing the original range from 550 to 850 meters. Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted November 7, 2001 Share Posted November 7, 2001 Thanks for running this test and for adding in the costs and cost ratios. I wonder if this supports JasonC's contention that Allied tanks are about 25% overpriced. My seat-of-the-pants feeling has been that the Jumbo76 is the best-priced tank in CM, but here we see that the Panther(late), though 3 pts. cheaper, has in fact about a 25% survivability rate. On top of this, the Panther has much better ground pressure characteristics. I realize pricing is a complicated issue, but it does make one wonder. Treeburst, are these all head-to-head battles against frontal armor or do the tanks have room to manuever for flank shots, etc? Also, would it make much difference if the Jumbos had, say, 5 tungsten rounds, which is not uncommon late in the war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted November 7, 2001 Author Share Posted November 7, 2001 These are all head to head frontal armor showdowns. Why? Because 80% of the armor duels I find myself engaged in are head-on or nearly so. I don't think more tungsten would make much of a difference against the Panther. Penetration of tungsten is actually worse than AP against the heavily sloped hull armor. Tungsten may help against the Panther turret however. In normal play I have bounced many a tungsten round off Panther fronts. The Panther is just one tough tank. I'd rather fight Tigers any day. Treeburst155 out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts